But something went terribly awry last week in Uvalde, Texas, as police stood by for nearly an hour while a crazed gunman murdered 19 children and two adults at Robb Elementary School.
Instead of rushing in immediately to confront the shooter, as their training requires them to do, dozens of cops waited outside and formed a perimeter around the school, focusing more on tasing and arresting parents who came to rescue their children instead of worrying about the gunman.
Indeed, the quickly shifting narrative of a police force that allowed the rampage to continue looks more and more like what some might consider to be a false-flag operation—an accusation that drew outrage when popular conservative pundit Alex Jones floated it in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.
Jones later recanted his claim that the Newtown, Conn., massacre was staged to help the Obama administration push through gun-control legislation, although he continues to grapple with a contentious defamation lawsuit filed by the grieving parents.
But with Uvalde, even left-wing media outlets are piling on the Texas Department of Public Safety's explanations as to why officers on the scene did not more aggressively confront the 18-year-old shooter, with reports noting that some officers even retreated.
Texas DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez told CNN that three of the department’s officers entered the school building, but they were “taking gunfire” and thus had to retreat and call for additional backup.
That's not what their training called for, as noted by New York Times reporter Mike Baker late last week.
"I have spent the past few days researching the training of Uvalde officers, including the tactics they were expected to use to halt school shooters. The documents are jarring," he wrote to begin a Twitter thread.
"In the past two years, the Uvalde school district has hosted at least two active-shooter training days. One of them was just two months ago. The trainings included both classroom teachings and role-playing scenarios inside school hallways," he noted further, adding photos of the event.
In the past two years, the Uvalde school district has hosted at least two active-shooter training days. One of them was just two months ago.
The trainings included both classroom teachings and role-playing scenarios inside school hallways (below).https://t.co/vE11bemXYg
— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) May 28, 2022
"The Uvalde training session 2 months ago relied on guidelines that give explicit expectations for officers responding to an active shooter. The training is clear: Time is of the essence. The 'first priority is to move in and confront the attacker,'" Baker continued, quoting the training manual.
"But how should officers confront the gunman? With a tactical team? The training says that's probably not feasible, because the urgency is so high," Baker continued. "A SINGLE OFFICER, the training says, may need to confront the suspect on their own."
But how should officers confront the gunman? With a tactical team? The training says that's probably not feasible, because the urgency is so high.
A SINGLE OFFICER, the training says, may need to confront the suspect on their own.
— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) May 28, 2022
"The guidelines provide sobering clarity: The first officers may be risking their lives. But, it says, innocent lives take priority. 'A first responder unwilling to place the lives of the innocent above their own safety should consider another career field,'" he added, again quoting the training manual.
"The guidelines actually provide scenarios in which officers are shot, including one modeled after the Santa Fe High School shooting, also in Texas. The scenario explains that if one officer is shot, the second 'is expected to go on responding solo,'" the reporter continued.
"It’s clear that officers did not follow that scenario this week. 19 officers staged outside the classroom. 78 minutes elapsed before they entered. Children repeatedly called 911 from inside," he concluded.
It's clear officers in Uvalde did not follow their own recent training. The question is why not?